study of the king james bible(钦印〈圣经〉研究)-第14节
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
and be banished forever。 They quote a 〃certaine great philosopher〃 who
said that those logs were happy which became images and were worshiped；
while； other logs as good as they were laid behind the fire to be burned。 So
they sought to use as many English words； familiar in speech and
commonly understood； as they might； lest they should impoverish the
language； and so lose out of use good words。 There is no doubt that in this
43
… Page 44…
Study of the King James Bible
effort both to save the language； and to represent accurately the meaning
of the original； they sometimes overdid that avoidance of uniformity。
There were times when it would have been well if the words had been
more consistently translated。 For example； in the epistle of James ii： 2； 3；
you have goodly 〃apparel；〃 vile 〃raiment；〃 and gay 〃clothing；〃 all
translating one Greek word。 Our revised versions have sought to correct
such inconsistencies。 But it was all done in the interest of an accuracy that
should yet not be a slavish uniformity。
This will be enough to illustrate what was meant in speaking of the
effort of the translators to achieve accuracy in their version。
III。 The third marked trait of the work as a version of the Scripture is
its striking blending of dignity and popularity in its language。 At any
period of a living language； there are three levels of speech。 There is an
upper level used by the clearest thinkers and most careful writers； always
correct according to the laws of the language； generally somewhat remote
from common lifethe habitual speech of the more intellectual。 There is
also the lower level used by the least intellectual； frequently incorrect
according to the laws of the language； rough； containing what we now call
〃slang；〃 the talk of a knot of men on the street corner waiting for a new
bulletin of a ball game； cheap in words； impoverished in synonyms； using
one word to express any number of ideas； as slang always does。 Those two
levels are really farther apart than we are apt to realize。 A book or an
article on the upper level will be uninteresting and unintelligible to the
people on the lower level。 And a book in the language of the lower level is
offensive and disgusting to those of the upper level。 That is not because
the ideas are so remote； but because the characteristic expressions are
almost unfamiliar to the people of the different levels。 The more
thoughtful people read the abler journals of the day； they read the
editorials or the more extended articles； they read also the great literature。
If they take up the sporting page of a newspaper to read the account of a
ball game written in the style of the lower level of thought； where words
are misused in disregard of the laws of the language； and where one word
is made to do duty for a great many ideas； they do it solely for amusement。
They could never think of finding their mental stimulus in that sort of
44
… Page 45…
Study of the King James Bible
thing。 On the other hand； there are people who find in that kind of reading
their real interest。 If they should take up a thoughtful editorial or a book of
essays； they would not know what the words mean in the connection in
which they are used。 They speak a good deal about the vividness of this
lower…level language； about its popularity； they speak with a sneer about
the stiffness and dignity of that upper level。
These are； however； only the two extremes； for there is always a
middle level where move words common to both； where are avoided the
words peculiar to each。 It is the language that most people speak。 It is the
language of the street； and also of the study； of the parlor； and of the shop。
But it has little that is peculiar to either of those other levels； or to any one
place where a man may live his life and do his talking。 If we illustrate
from other literature； we can say that Macaulay's essays move on the
upper level； and that much of the so…called popular literature of our day
moves on the lower level； while Dickens moves on the middle level；
which means that men whose habitual language is that of the upper and
the lower levels can both enter into the spirit of his writing。
Now； originally the Bible moved on that middle level。 It was a
colloquial book。 The languages in which it first appeared were not in the
classic forms。 They are the languages of the streets where they were
written。 The Hebrew is almost our only example of the tongue at its period；
but it is not a literary language in any case。 The Greek of the New
Testament is not the Eolic； the language of the lyrics of Sappho； nor the
Doric； the language of war…songs or the chorus in the drama； nor the Ionic；
the dialect of epic poetry； but the Attic Greek； and a corrupted form of that；
a form corrupted by use in the streets and in the markets。
That was the original language of the Bible； a colloquial language。 But
that fact does not determine the translation。 Whether it shall be put into the
English language on the upper level or on the lower level is not so readily
determined。 Efforts have been made to put it into the language of each
level。 We have a so… called elegant translation； and we have the Bible cast
into the speech of the common day。 The King James version is on the
middle level。 It is a striking blending of the dignity of the upper level and
the popularity of the lower level。
45
… Page 46…
Study of the King James Bible
There is tremendous significance in the fact that these men were
making a version which should be for all people； making it out in the open
day with the king and all the people behind them。 It was the first
independent version which had been made under such favorable
circumstances。 Most of the versions had been made in private by men who
were imperiling themselves in their work。 They did not expect the Book to
pass into common use； they knew that the men who received the result of
their work would have to be those who were earnest enough to go into
secret places for their reading。 But here was a changed condition。 These
men were making a version by royal authority； a version awaited with
eager interest by the people in general。 The result is that it is a people's
Book。 Its phrases are those of common life； those that had lived up to that
time。 It is not in the peculiar language of the times。 If you want to know
the language of their own times； read these translators' servile； unhistorical
dedication to the king； or their far nobler preface to the reader。 That is the
language peculiar to their own day。 But the language of the Bible itself is
that form which had lived its way into common use。 One hundred years
after Wiclif it yet speaks his language in large part； for that part had really
lived。 In the Bibliotheca Pastorum Ruskin makes comment on Sir Philip
Sidney and his metrical version of the Psalms in these words： 〃Sir Philip
Sidney will use any cow…boy or tinker words if they only help him to say
precisely in English what David said in Hebrew； impressed the while
himself so vividly of the majesty of the thought itself that no tinker's
language can lower it or vulgarize it in his mind。〃 The King James
translators were most eager to say what the original said； and to say it so
that the common man could well understand it； and yet so that it should
not be vulgarized or cheapened by adoption of cheap words。
In his History Hallam passes some rather sharp strictures on the
English of the King James version； remarking that it abounds in uncouth
phrases and in words whose meaning is not familiar； and that whatever is
to be said it is； at any rate； not in the English of the time of King James。
And that latter saying is true； though it must be remembered that Hallam
wrote in the
